If Edward VIII hadn't abdicated, who would be monarch today?

[Alexey 1904]

I think it would still be the present Queen. She'd only be celebrating her 41st year on the throne, however, since 'Uncle David' didn't pass on until 1972, 20 years after brother Albert(King George VI).

 

[BritishRoyalist]

I think it would still be the present Queen. She'd only be celebrating her 41st year on the throne, however, since 'Uncle David' didn't pass on until 1972, 20 years after brother Albert(King George VI).

I was thinking, Who to say that Queen Elizabeth would not have came to the throne earlier (but after 1952) or later? Yes She would still be Queen today, the War took a toll on George VI (like George V) who was also a heavy smoker and that had to do partly with why he died young (56), Edward VIII didn't have to deal with the stress of the war and lived into his late 70s (His father died at age 70). Edward did smoke also (but I don't think like his Father and Grandfather). If Edward VII had to deal with the stress of the war, his Brother would not have had to deal with the burden would have able to live more quietly with his family and he probably would have lived longer, Edward VIII may have died younger then he lived like his brother and George VI may have lived linger then he actually did with the stress of the war and smoking. He would have became King much later and Elizabeth would have have been able to enjoy family life more quietly and be more on hands, She may not have became Queen until After Edward had turned 18 that is if Her father had lived to the same age as his mother Mary.

Obviously it hard to say, She would have still became Queen but it may have been later then 1972 if Edward VIII had stayed on the throne. But there also the possibility that he marries someone else Nd has kids.but we are assuming he says single and hS no heirs.

 

[mammacats]

mammacats

A recent autobiography from last year of DofW's King George VI also dealt with his trials of dealing with the DofW. The book mentioned that Edward had indeed had a bad reaction to his illness as a youth which may have emotionally stunted him. I thought the book was very well written and sourced. Wasn't dry reading, in fact I found it absolutely fascinating how the life stories of the two brothers were so intertwined.

The DoW was a spoiled little boy who never grew up. He bedeviled his brother and deeply resented him all his life. He spent his time in exile finding new ways to embarrass his King and his Country.
.

 

[Ish]

A recent autobiography from last year of DofW's King George VI also dealt with his trials of dealing with the DofW. The book mentioned that Edward had indeed had a bad reaction to his illness as a youth which may have emotionally stunted him. I thought the book was very well written and sourced. Wasn't dry reading, in fact I found it absolutely fascinating how the life stories of the two brothers were so intertwined.

The DoW was a spoiled little boy who never grew up. He bedeviled his brother and deeply resented him all his life. He spent his time in exile finding new ways to embarrass his King and his Country.
.

The way I've always understood the DoW was that he was a lot like Edward VII, Albert Victor, or even the younger sons of George III when they were growing up. Immature, irresponsible, and hard to pin down but with the potential for something - we saw the "something" mature in Edward VII when he became king, and in ways in George III's sons when they entered into the race for the heir. Albert Victor died before having that chance, while the DoW was influenced away from achieving that.

George VI, on the other hand, and his father as well, both seemed to more follow the more mature example of Albert.

 

[Zach]

If Elizabeth wasn't Queen

Say King Edward VIII had married someone other than Wallis Simpson.
Whether it be an aristocrat's daughter like the Queen Mother or Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, a Russian Princess (if the Imperial Family had've been allowed to live in England) or some minor European Princess.
If he did marry and have children, then HM the Queen would have remained as Princess Elizabeth of York.

For whatever reason this is a very interesting scenario. At some stage she would have met Prince Philip of Greece and from all reports she was smitten with him from the start. Would there have been less objection to this marriage by the British Establishment/Duke and Duchess of York? The Queen's Uncle the Duke of Kent married Princess Marina of Greece in the 30's so I think we can safely assume that the Greek Royal Family was considered to be an acceptable place for British Royals to find a spouse.

If Elizabeth and Philip had married, would she have become Princess Philip of Greece? Philip was educated in Scotland and I remember reading somewhere that he spent his summers with his maternal grandmother, the Marchioness of Milford Haven? I also remember seeing in a documentary that Philip's mother felt that there was a chance he could become King of Greece one day. He apparently does not speak Greek, but I wonder if the marriage to a British Princess might have helped his prospects (I'm not too familiar with Greek Politics but it seems that in both wars the UK and Greece were on the same side and Greece did depend on the UK for a lot of support).
Would it be feasible that Elizabeth and Philip might have been seen as an alternative King and Queen of Greece instead of King Constantine etc?

If not, and Philip and Elizabeth married and stayed in Britain would he have had to renounce his Greek Titles? I doubt he would have been made Duke of Edinburgh if Elizabeth wasn't going to be Queen. Angus Ogilvy was offered an Earldom when he married Princess Alexandra of Kent, who would have held the same rank as Granddaughter/Niece of the Sovereign as Elizabeth had she not have become Queen. Perhaps Philip would have been made Earl of Edinburgh?
In order for this to be achieved, would Philip had still have to renounce his Greek Titles?

Finally, would the still have had the children/named the children in the same way as they did in this scenario? The ten year age gap between Anne and Andrew seems to be a result of Elizabeth becoming Queen and establishing herself during the 50's. Would they still have had four children if Elizabeth wasn't Queen?

 

[royal-blue]

Let's imagine that Kate Middleton was the great granddaughter of Edward, therefore barred from the line of succession herself. If she went on to marry heir to the throne Prince William, and gave birth to baby George, would he also be illegible to succeed to the throne?

 

[Cris M]

Let's imagine that Kate Middleton was the great granddaughter of Edward, therefore barred from the line of succession herself. If she went on to marry heir to the throne Prince William, and gave birth to baby George, would he also be illegible to succeed to the throne?

I don't think so. His right to the throne would be derived from his father, not his mother. It's like the Queen's children, they follow their mother in the line of succession, not their father, although the Duke of Edinburgh is in the line of succession to the British Throne - he is 600-something if memory serves me right.

 

[Ish]

Let's imagine that Kate Middleton was the great granddaughter of Edward, therefore barred from the line of succession herself. If she went on to marry heir to the throne Prince William, and gave birth to baby George, would he also be illegible to succeed to the throne?

No more than William is by being a descendant of James II through illegitimate means.

The idea is that no one can take their claim to the throne from Edward VIII (or from any illegitimate lines). It doesn't actually mean that if you can trace your ancestry to him you are barred from the succession - if you're descended through one line that is excluded but through another line that isn't excluded you just take your spot in the succession from the not-excluded line.

 

[Skippyboo]

Let's imagine that Kate Middleton was the great granddaughter of Edward, therefore barred from the line of succession herself. If she went on to marry heir to the throne Prince William, and gave birth to baby George, would he also be illegible to succeed to the throne?

Isn't this thread where Edward doesn't abdicate? If so, his descendants if legitimate are on the British throne instead of his brother descendants. That is if there is still a British throne. Maybe part of Germany. With Edward VIII on the throne during the war, maybe the British fall during the Battle of Britain.




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Iluvbertie]

There has been a combining of a number of threads or ideas:


one - he doesn't abdicates, has an appropriate marriage and has legitimate heirs who would now be on the throne


two - he doesn't abdicate but also doesn't marry - who then would be the monarch - obviously Elizabeth but we wouldn't have probably had George VI


three - he still abdicates but marries another woman who has a right to the throne in their own right - their children would take their claim from their mother - so instead of being barred would be following their mother's line e.g. if mother was 400th then they would be 401, 402 etc

I don't think so. His right to the throne would be derived from his father, not his mother. It's like the Queen's children, they follow their mother in the line of succession, not their father, although the Duke of Edinburgh is in the line of succession to the British Throne - he is 600-something if memory serves me right.

They can actually claim it through both their parents but obviously they take their position from the highest of their parents - just as Elizabeth herself took her right from her descent from George V rather than Queen Mary (who herself was in the line of succession as a legitimate descendant of George III).

 

[Skippyboo]

There has been a combining of a number of threads or ideas:


one - he doesn't abdicates, has an appropriate marriage and has legitimate heirs who would now be on the throne


two - he doesn't abdicate but also doesn't marry - who then would be the monarch - obviously Elizabeth but we wouldn't have probably had George VI


three - he still abdicates but marries another woman who has a right to the throne in their own right - their children would take their claim from their mother - so instead of being barred would be following their mother's line e.g. if mother was 400th then they would be 401, 402 etc

Scenario one - it's the descendants of Edward

scenario 2- it's ends with Elizabeth on the throne but maybe the lifespans of David and Bertie are changed. David is the wartime King which probably cuts years from his life or is hit by the bomb that hits BP that almost got his brother and wife in real life. Bertie as the heir to throne is sent to Canada with his family and/ or kept out of the fighting like David was in WWI. This prolonged his life and may outlive his brother to become King on his own.

Scenario 3- No one Edward could have married in 1936 with rights to the throne could have a realistic shot at the throne. Even if he married his sister Mary, the descendants of his 3 brothers would still be ahead of them. Which now is 40 to 50 people? Plus who he wanted to marry caused the govt to disprove of Wallis. Would the govt disprove of him marrying a cousin? No, because cousins marrying cousins was normal for the royals. Marrying aristocrats' daughters like Bertie did wasn't the norm. So in this scenario, David still has to marry Wallis to force the abdication and give up his children's rights and then Wallis dies and he remarried someone with British throne rights. However, the woman would still need approval from the British monarch/govt to wed according to the Royal Marriage Act. It would have to be given or the woman would lose her right and the children's rights as well.






Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[kbk]

No more than William is by being a descendant of James II through illegitimate means.

The idea is that no one can take their claim to the throne from Edward VIII (or from any illegitimate lines). It doesn't actually mean that if you can trace your ancestry to him you are barred from the succession - if you're descended through one line that is excluded but through another line that isn't excluded you just take your spot in the succession from the not-excluded line.

I disagree with you. According to the Abdication Act it is quite clear that no descendant of Edward can have rights to the throne. Thus, even being the eldest child of a monarch, while still being a descendant of Edward VIII on another side of the family, cannot give succession rights. In a very absurd case of Kate being a descendant of Edward VIII and thus barred from succession by the said act, a new act of parliament would be needed to clear the case and let Prince George and any further descendants of Kate and William to succeed to the throne through any other lines of descent than the Edward's one, or specifically through Prince William. This would be some sort of an act that acknowledges George's rights to the throne through his father, despite him being a subject to the Abdication Act as a descendant of Edward through Kate (which would automatically barred him from succession!).

To sum up, there would be needed an act of parliament simply to remove those provisions of the Abdication Act from George and any further descendants of Kate & William that forbid his rights to the throne.

 

[Ish]

I disagree with you. According to the Abdication Act it is quite clear that no descendant of Edward can have rights to the throne. Thus, even being the eldest child of a monarch, while still being a descendant of Edward VIII on another side of the family, cannot give succession rights. In a very absurd case of Kate being a descendant of Edward VIII and thus barred from succession by the said act, a new act of parliament would be needed to clear the case and let Prince George and any further descendants of Kate and William to succeed to the throne through any other lines of descent than the Edward's one, or specifically through Prince William. This would be some sort of an act that acknowledges George's rights to the throne through his father, despite him being a subject to the Abdication Act as a descendant of Edward through Kate (which would automatically barred him from succession!).

To sum up, there would be needed an act of parliament simply to remove those provisions of the Abdication Act from George and any further descendants of Kate & William that forbid his rights to the throne.

I don't agree that it clearly says that. Yes, Edward said that he renounced the throne for himself and his descendants, but that's a pretty standard renouncement and I think it's intended to mean that Edward's descendants couldn't claim the throne through their descent from Edward. We have seen other individuals who are descended from royals in a manner that does not grant them succession rights succeed because they're descended from other royals in a way that does grant them succession rights - William, for example, is descended from both Charles II and James II through illegitimate lines (and Catholics to boot), but that doesn't invalidate his claim through his grandmother.

There are many British royals who have succession rights through many lines. The idea that being descended in the wrong way via one line will exclude you from having a claim in every other line is absurd.

 

[kbk]

I don't agree that it clearly says that. Yes, Edward said that he renounced the throne for himself and his descendants, but that's a pretty standard renouncement and I think it's intended to mean that Edward's descendants couldn't claim the throne through their descent from Edward. We have seen other individuals who are descended from royals in a manner that does not grant them succession rights succeed because they're descended from other royals in a way that does grant them succession rights - William, for example, is descended from both Charles II and James II through illegitimate lines (and Catholics to boot), but that doesn't invalidate his claim through his grandmother.

There are many British royals who have succession rights through many lines. The idea that being descended in the wrong way via one line will exclude you from having a claim in every other line is absurd.

(2)His Majesty, His issue, if any, and the descendants of that issue, shall not after His Majesty's abdication have any right, title or interest in or to the succession to the Throne...

Ish, IT DOES clrearly says that.
It's law and its stiupulations are very clear, so there's no place for any intentions here. Having an another claim to the throne, I mean from an another line of descent than Edward VIII's does not replace or undo what the Abdication Act, let's say it again - clearly says. It just can't. Law is law, an an act of Parliament is the highest law. Thus, there would be needed an amendement of the said Act or an entire new act that replaces the Abdication Act or in any other way settles the question of succession of all Edward VIII's descendants (or any particular person or someone's all future descendants) who have another claims to the throne.

I don't say that being descended from Edward VIII and Electress Sophia of Hanover through an another line would disqualify any person from succession, but the Abdication Act of Edward VIII does that. That person would still have his or her claims, but it would be unlawful because the said Act prohibits them.
What matters here for a possible Prince George descended from Edward VIII from his mother's line, legally, is simply being a descendant of the King, thus a subject to the provisions of the Abdication Act.

Of course, the royals' descent from illegitimate or morganatic issue of monarchs does not give them rights to the throne (in some cases, morganatic children could have legal claims to the throne), but they derive their claims from another, legal and dynastic lines. There is no law that bars someone's other claims just because he or she comes also from an unlawful line at the same time. But there is a law that bars those who are (would be) descended from Edward VIII, with no exceptions or conditions like being descended also from an another royal, from the succession. Read the act, it is quite evident.

 

[Osipi]

It stands to reason too that if Edward VIII had never abdicated, there would have been no Abdication Act that would bar any of his descendants from succeeding to the throne. They possibly could have passed an Act of Parliament disbarring any descendants of Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson from succeeding to the throne but that's a whole other ball of wax.

It is also kind of interesting to think that if Thelma Furness (wife of Marmaduke Furness, 1st Viscount Furness and 2nd Baron Furness and at one time mistress of the then Prince of Wales) had divorced her husband and married David, CNN's Anderson Cooper could boast that his great aunt was Queen Consort.

As it turned out, Thelma introduced Wallis to David and the rest is the history we now know.

 

[Donald P]

Royal Succession

Yes, assuming he still married Wallis, remained king and childless, Elizabeth II would still have become queen.

Assuming Edward did not marry Wallis Simpson and lived out his reign, I don't think Elizabeth would ever have become Queen. Edward VIII died in 1972. His only surviving sibling was Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester who would have succeeded to the throne. He would have ruled for two years and died in 1974. His only surviving son, Prince Richard, born in 1944, would have succeeded his father and would still be king today.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[crm2317]

Assuming Edward did not marry Wallis Simpson and lived out his reign, I don't think Elizabeth would ever have become Queen. Edward VIII died in 1972. His only surviving sibling was Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester who would have succeeded to the throne. He would have ruled for two years and died in 1974. His only surviving son, Prince Richard, born in 1944, would have succeeded his father and would still be king today.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

If Edward VIII had remained childless his next brother in line was Prince Albert who became King George VI so the Queen would still become Queen as she is today. Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester was younger than Prince Albert, followed by Prince George Duke of Kent.

 

[Fürstin Taxis]

^Yup.
I also think that the family itself would be very different today.

 

[Donald P]

George V

But his brother Albert died in 1952 so he would never have succeeded to the throne. His brother Henry was alive in 1972 and would be next in line. He died in 1974 so his only surviving son, Prince Richard born in 1944 would be King today.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Except with having the pressure of becoming King directly after Edwards abdication, Albert would have lived longer.

Plus there's a chance Edward would have lived a shorter live having gone through the pressures Albert did.

 

[Donald P]

But that didn't happen and it is only supposition. The date of death for all of them is fact.

If Edward VIII had remained childless his next brother in line was Prince Albert who became King George VI so the Queen would still become Queen as she is today. Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester was younger than Prince Albert, followed by Prince George Duke of Kent.

Three were four sons. Edward VIII who died in 1972. Albert died in 1952, John died 1919 and Henry died in 1974. Assuming that Edward did not marry Wallis and had no children, upon his death in 1972, Henry would have succeeded until his death two years later. His son Richard born in 1944 would be King today. Unfortunately, Elizabeth would not have reigned.

 

[FanofMonaco]

It would have been the same. From what I have read Edward was a traitor passing information to the Germans. He was very lucky to have been given the option of abdicating. He could just as easily been hanged.

 

[Rudolph]

Elizabeth would have become Queen in 1972 because she was higher in the line of succession. The children of Prince Albert came before the Duke of Gloucester.

 

[crm2317]

Three were four sons. Edward VIII who died in 1972. Albert died in 1952, John died 1919 and Henry died in 1974. Assuming that Edward did not marry Wallis and had no children, upon his death in 1972, Henry would have succeeded until his death two years later. His son Richard born in 1944 would be King today. Unfortunately, Elizabeth would not have reigned.

I am pretty sure you are wrong. Even with Prince Albert pre-decreasing his brother the throne would still have passed to his line before the line of Prince Henry. The throne would pass to King Edward's niece, Princess Elizabeth of York.

Similarly when King William IV died the throne passed to his niece Princess Victoria who was the daughter of his next youngest brother who had died years before. This was despite William's brothers Ernest, Augustus and Adolophus still being alive.

 

[Donald P]

I am sorry, I don't get it. If Edward did not abdicate, he would have been King until 1972. Albert died in 1952 so he would never have reigned. The Duke of Gloucester was Edward's only surviving sibling and died in 1974. He would have ruled for only two years and be suceeded by his son Richard.

I am pretty sure you are wrong. Even with Prince Albert pre-decreasing his brother the throne would still have passed to his line before the line of Prince Henry. The throne would pass to King Edward's niece, Princess Elizabeth of York.

Similarly when King William IV died the throne passed to his niece Princess Victoria who was the daughter of his next youngest brother who had died years before. This was despite William's brothers Ernest, Augustus and Adolophus still being alive.

I don't know why the throne would have passed to niece when a brother was still alive but I am certainly no authority on royal succession!

 

[Rudolph]

^^^ Because his niece was higher in the line of succession. Prince Elizabeth before the Duke of Gloucester

 

[Donald P]

Succession

She was not even in the line of succession! Her father would not have been King. Edvard's brother Henry was a direct descendent of a King.

 

[Kit]

That's correct! Elizabeth would have become Queen because she was higher in the succession than her uncle the Duke of Gloucester.

 

[cepe]

She was not even in the line of succession! Her father would not have been King. Edvard's brother Henry was a direct descendent of a King.

Her father not becoming king would have no difference.

Succession works through primogeniture - So Edward, Albert, Henry, George.

IF they had all lived till Edward's death in 1972 the order would have been

Edward Albert Elizabeth MArgaret Henry William Richard George Edward Michael Alexandra.

Take that list and delete all those who were dead in 1972 and Elizabeth would be next in line

 

[Kit]

Her father not becoming king would have no difference.



Succession works through primogeniture - So Edward, Albert, Henry, George.



IF they had all lived till Edward's death in 1972 the order would have been



Edward Albert Elizabeth MArgaret Henry William Richard George Edward Michael Alexandra.



Take that list and delete all those who were dead in 1972 and Elizabeth would be next in line

Absolutely correct!